Clearing Authorisation once a tenative outcome has been selected.

[Adam Toms]

Hi all,

I'm trying to make some minor enhancement to our technical peer review change process, one of those is the ability to clear the previous tech peer reviewer's details should an incorrect technical peer reviewer be selected.

I would of thought through the tentative option getting the last authorisation details, and then using a node to clear the previous authorisation would work, however when going back through the flow, somewhere the previous details are being retained and automatically picked back up when the workflow goes back round.

I've included a screenshot of our BPM. Does anyone have any ideas on how I can overcome this?

Many Thanks

Adam

[Berto2002]

It looks like you are assigning to individuals for this review? The only case where we use this kind of node ourselves is where we use a group for the assignment.

The Get Change Managers node gets a list of the people with the role of CAB Approver

Then anyone with the CAB Approver Role can do the approval. You can optionally get the email addresses of those people and send them an email that someone with their Role must provide approval. They work-out between them on each occasion who does it; in our case, we rotate the Chg Mgr role for CAB by rota.

I just wonder whether this approach might give you another way to achieve your desired outcome. In short, it's the same group each time but different individuals can act.

 

[Adam Toms]

Thanks @Berto2002 for sharing how you have yours configured, that's incredibly helpful and gives me potential to explore a different avenue.

Just to provide some additional background information with our change process, is that the change builder raises, it and then we have a technical peer reviewer, before coming into change management, then providing we as change managers believe the change is appropriate and not conflicting with another change in the same window it progressed to CAB. Our CAB members are largely from a business stakeholder/ custodian background, therefore we need that technical peer reviewer step to help assure the level of technical detail, proposed in the change.

In some cases if the change is a minor impact, it will not require CAB approval, and therefore the technical peer review step has even greater importance.

The technical peer reviewer has the potential to be any member of staff within our IT department, and therefore it's been somewhat of a challenge to come up with a suitable role.

I will certainly give what you're saying some thought regarding an authorisation assignee role.

Thanks again

Adam